I concur with the plan to advance DKIM to draft standard. It's not clear to me as a matter of IETF politics whether we can advance 4871+5672 as a unit to draft standard, or if it's mandatory to make another pass and turn them into one document. I'd rather avoid that pass if at all possible since the worms in this particular can are unusually wriggly.
Re the ADSP data collection, I'd like to add a third option to move it to Historic if ADSP turns out to be as useful as I think, but I realize this is unlikely to be a popular suggestion. Re the other stuff, it's way too early to make changes. At some point it might be useful to update the usage guide on hot button issues like signing for your customers and DKIM vs. mailing lists, but we need actual experience first. At this point it's just guessing to argue whether there are in fact any problems that the current DKIM cannot solve that a modified version could. R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
